United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (UN OIOS) 20 Apr 2005 report titled "Audit of the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights Use of UN Office for Project Services [AE2004-355-01]" relating to Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The report runs to 17 printed pages.

Simple text version follows

UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM INTERIEUR
AUD II-7-4:4(AE98/05) 20 April 2005
TO: Ms. Louise Arbour
High Commissioner for Human Rights
FROM: Egbert C. Kaltenbach, Director
Internal Audit Division II
Office of Internal Oversight Services
SUBJECT: OIOS Audit of the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights
Use of UN Office for Project Services (AE2004/355/01)
1. I am pleased to submit the final Audit Report on the audit of the Office of High
Commissioner for Human Rights Use of UN Office for Project Services, which was
conducted between July and October 2004 in Geneva by Ms. Anne Murphy and Ms. Sophie
Deflorin.
2. A draft of the report was shared with the Deputy High Commissioner, OHCHR, the
Regional Director, UNOPS Geneva Office and the Chief of Financial Resources Management
Services, UNOG, on 2 February 2005 whose comments, which were received on 1 March and
28 February 2005, are reflected in the final report.
3. I am pleased to note that all of the audit recommendations contained in the final Audit
Report have been accepted and that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
has started to implement them. After a review of the comments from all parties, OIOS revised
Recommendation no. 05 of the draft Audit Report. The table in paragraph 44 of the report
identifies those recommendations, which require further action to be closed. I wish to draw
your attention to recommendations 01 and 02, which OIOS considers to be of critical
importance.
4. I would appreciate if you could provide me with an update on the status of
implementation of the audit recommendations not later than 31 May 2005. This will facilitate
the preparation of the twice yearly report to the Secretary-General on the implementation of
recommendations, required by General Assembly Resolution 48/218B. You may also wish to
share this final Audit Report with UNOPS.
5. Please note that OIOS is assessing the overall quality of its audit process. I therefore
kindly request that you consult with your managers who dealt directly with the auditors,
complete the attached client satisfaction survey and return it to me.
6. Thank you for your cooperation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment: Client Satisfaction Survey
cc: Ms. C. Bertini, Under-Secretary-General for Management (by e-mail)
Mr. S. Goolsarran, Executive Secretary, UN Board of Auditors
Mr. T. Rajaobelina, Deputy Director of External Audit (by e-mail)
Ms. M. Khan Williams, Deputy High Commissioner, OHCHR (by e-mail)
Mr. B. Juppin de Fondaumi�re, Director, Division of Administration, UNOG (by e-mail)
Ms. Kathryn Hinkle-Babul, Audit Focal Point, OHCHR (by e-mail)
Mr. M. Tapio, Programme Officer, OUSG, OIOS (by e-mail)
Ms. C. Ch�vez, Chief, Geneva Audit Section (by e-mail)
Ms. A. Murphy, Auditor-in-Charge (by e-mail)
Mr. D. Ti�ana, Auditing Assistant (by e-mail)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Nations
Office of Internal Oversight Services
Internal Audit Division II
Audit Report
Audit of the Office of High Commissioner for
Human Rights Use of UN Office for Project Services
(AE2004/335/01)
Report No. E05/R04
Report date: 20 April 2005
Auditors: Ms. Anne Murphy
Ms. Sophie Deflorin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES
Office of Internal Oversight Services
Internal Audit Division II
OIOS AUDIT OF OHCHR USE OF UN OFFICE FOR PROJECT SERVICES
(AE2004/355/01)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
From July to October 2004, OIOS conducted an audit of the Office of High Commissioner for
Human Rights Use of UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS). The audit covered activities with
a total expenditure of $24 million in 2003 and 2004. OHCHR has accepted the recommendations
made and is in the process of implementing them.
Memorandum of Understanding
� At the time of the audit, UNOPS was managing six field offices on behalf of OHCHR under a
Memorandum of Understanding. UNOPS still retained a fund balance of between $0.8 million
and $1.4 million to pay for past expenditures of "global projects", which UNOPS had
previously managed and which reverted to OHCHR in 2003. As OIOS recommended, OHCHR
requested UNOPS to provide updated accounts for all UNOPS-managed global projects and
agreed to inform UNOPS on the future use of any remaining balances from global projects.
UNOPS will respond to any request by OHCHR to finalise and confirm the remaining fund
balance of the global projects previously managed by UNOPS.
� No formal performance indicators existed. OHCHR instead relied on a matrix of OHCHR and
UNOPS responsibilities for the various functions. Such a tool, however, is not a substitute for
performance indicators. OIOS reiterates its previous audit recommendation that performance
indicators be established. OHCHR will agree with UNOPS on the indicators to be used to
determine performance. UNOPS agreed to join OHCHR in establishing performance indicators
to monitor agreed outputs or review arrangements as planned in the MOUs.
Financial and Accounting Arrangements
� OHCHR used operating reserves in case of funding shortfalls, claiming that the UN Controller
had verbally endorsed this practice. Both UNOG and the UN Controller clarified to OIOS that
the use of operating reserves had only been approved on an exceptional basis and for a specific
case. OHCHR agreed to seek written confirmation from UNOG under which circumstances
cash balances can be temporarily transferred from one project to another. OHCHR should
ensure that UNOPS uses funds only for their specific purpose within the allocation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
� It was unclear how contingent liabilities, which may result from early termination of `Activities
with Limited Duration' contracts of UNOPS staff for service in OHCHR projects, would be
covered. OHCHR committed to agree with UNOG and UNOPS on ways to cover these
contingent liabilities.
� UNOPS did not always provide reliable or timely information to OHCHR. UNOPS attributed
this partly on its conversion to a new financial information system as of January 2004.
However, this lack of financial information has been a problem since the first MOU in 1998.
The lack of financial information and inconsistent financial information affected OHCHR's
planning and forecasting. OHCHR, however, also did not submit certified financial reports to
UNOG on time. UNOPS stated that it had taken measures to improve its reporting ability, but
UNOG commented that the delay in financial reports still persisted. OHCHR requested UNOPS
to submit the final certified 2004 financial statements by 31 March 2005 and resume regular
reporting as of March 2005. OHCHR should follow up with UNOPS on timely financial
reports and should certify and submit them to UNOG without delay.
Arrangement of UNOPS Recruited Personnel
� UNOPS believes that staff if recruited for OHCHR projects are to be considered as internal
candidates for purposes of recruitment and promotion to UN Secretariat posts, because OHCHR
selected the candidate. OIOS concurs with UNOG's position that staff members holding
UNOPS Letters of Appointments are not internal candidates when applying for UN posts.
OHCHR replied that UNOPS recruited staff members would be informed of their status as
external candidates.
- April 2005-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER Paragraphs
I. INTRODUCTION 1-5
II. AUDIT OBJECTIVES 6
III. AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 7-8
IV. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9-42
A. Memorandum of Understanding 10-20
B. Financial Accounting Arrangements 21-37
C. Arrangement for Project Personnel 38-42
V. FURTHER ACTIONS REQUIRED ON RECOMMENDATIONS 43
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 44
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. INTRODUCTION
1. From July to October 2004, OIOS conducted an audit of the OHCHR's Use of UN
Office for Project Services. The audit was conducted in accordance with the International
Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing.
2. OHCHR is committed to strengthening the United Nations human rights programme
and providing support to the United Nations treaty monitoring bodies and special mechanisms
established by the Commission on Human Rights. It provides advisory services and technical
assistance when requested, and encourages governments to pursue the development of
effective national institutions and procedures for the protection for human rights. OHCHR
has established over 20 field presences to ensure that international human rights standards are
progressively implemented and realized at the country level, both in law and practice.
3. UNOPS is an arm of the United Nations, which provides project management services
where the UN has a mandate. Services may include selecting and hiring project personnel,
procuring goods and services, organizing training and managing financial resources.
4. OHCHR has been reviewed a number of times over the past few years including by
OIOS, the Joint Inspection Unit and the Board of Auditors. As part of the current audit, OIOS
looked at previous recommendations to determine whether they had been or were in the
process of being implemented by OHCHR
5. The audit findings and recommendations contained in this report were discussed at the
Exit Conference held on 28 October 2004 with the Deputy High Commissioner and with the
Chief and staff of the Administrative Section, OHCHR. OIOS also held separate meetings
with pertinent UNOPS and UNOG officials on 2 December 2004 and facilitated a tripartite
meeting among officials of OHCHR, UNOPS and UNOG on 3 December 2004. A draft of
the report was shared with the Deputy High Commissioner, OHCHR, the Regional Director,
UNOPS Geneva Office and the Chief of Financial Resources Management Services, UNOG,
on 2 February 2005 whose comments, which were received on 1 March and 28 February
2005, are reflected in the final report in italics. OHCHR has accepted all of the
recommendations made and is in the process of implementing them.
II. AUDIT OBJECTIVES
6. The main objectives of the audit were to determine:
(a) Compliance with the terms of the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU);
(b) Reliability of financial and accounting information;
(c) Compliance with UN regulations and rules; and
(d) Satisfactory performance of services by UNOPS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
III. AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
7. The scope of the audit covered the most recent financial statements for 2003, interim
financial reports for 2004 and the current MOU. While OIOS reviewed on a test basis the
terms of the MOU, financial and accounting arrangements and project personnel relative to
the services rendered, OIOS focused on financial issues because of problems OIOS identified
early on in the audit. According to OHCHR's 2003 annual report, activities implemented
through UNOPS totaled $11.5 million in expenditure. Total funds available were $12.5
million. For 2004, the six-monthly interim statements as of 30 June 2004 were not available.
Instead, UNOPS presented financial information up through 31 August 2004 on a project-by-
project basis for both field presences and the global projects. This financial information
showed total expenditure of $12.5 million and total cash funds available of $11.7 million.
8. The audit activities included a review and assessment of internal control systems,
interviews with relevant staff of OHCHR at Geneva, United Nations Office at Geneva
(UNOG), and UNOPS, a review of relevant documents and analyses of applicable data. The
audit reviewed the current MOU to determine whether it included adequate language
identifying the services to be provided, funding mechanisms, and performance indicators or
other qualitative criteria.
IV. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall Assessment
9. Based on the audit, OIOS concluded that financial management controls needed to be
improved by UNOPS and OHCHR. UNOPS needs to provide more timely and reliable
financial information to OHCHR and OHCHR should strive to fill any vacant
finance/administrative posts. Further, since several entities are involved in or impacted by the
MOU, the risk of misinterpreting or misunderstanding of facts or information is increased.
Consequently, OIOS believes all should make an effort to ensure that the terms of the MOU
and concomitant responsibilities are understood and adhered to. The officials present at the
OIOS facilitated tripartite meeting resolved several of these issues.
A. Memorandum of Understanding
(1) Terms
10. OHCHR and UNOPS first entered into a MOU in 1998. The MOU was an interim
agreement, pending completion of a joint evaluation by OHCHR and UNOPS. The interim
MOU subsequently was revised and incorporated certain recommendations that had been
made in a previous OIOS audit (AM/1999/128/1, Management Audit of OHCHR
Headquarters Administration). The most current MOU dates from 20 May 2003 and outlines
broad services that UNOPS can provide including:
(a) Management of implementation of OHCHR project operations in the field;
(b) Recruitment process and administration of project personnel;
(c) Contracting of consulting firms and contractors for services and works;
(d) Procurement of equipment, supplies and commodities; and
(e) Implementation of training activities and fellowships.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
11. UNOPS currently manages six field offices on behalf of OHCHR. They are Angola,
Burundi, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Serbia and
Montenegro (FRY). At the time of our fieldwork, a seventh field office, in Sudan, was
imminent. We were told that during the period under audit, operations in Croatia and the
Solomon Islands had been closed and that Iraqi activities had been suspended.
(2) Global projects
12. UNOPS had also managed so called global projects which OHCHR said had in the
meantime been transferred to UNOG. UNOPS still retains the fund balance of these global
projects, which as of 30 August 2004, was estimated to be between $0.8 million and $1.4
million. However, UNOPS had not been formally authorized to retain the balances of the
global projects. UNOPS wanted to keep the global projects balance, not for operational
purposes, but rather as a cushion to pay for past expenditures that are only being charged now,
e.g., salaries from 2002 being charged in 2004. UNOPS also wanted to retain the balance in
case a shortfall occurred.
13. The fact that at the end of 2004, the fund balance of the global projects which reverted
to OHCHR in 2003, was not even roughly known, confirms certain weaknesses in UNOPS'
financial reporting. Furthermore, it is difficult to understand that salaries and other cost
incurred in 2002 continue to be charged to the projects throughout 2004. As a matter of
priority, UNOPS needs to determine the exact fund balance of the global projects. Concerning
the use of such balance as a reserve for future cash shortfalls, OIOS does not have a problem
with this, as long as OHCHR has formally agreed to such use, for example, in form of a rider
to the current MOU.
Recommendation:
The Administrative Section, OHCHR should request UNOPS to
determine the remaining fund balance of the global projects previously
managed by UNOPS and agree with UNOPS on its future use (Rec.
01).
14. OHCHR accepted the recommendation and requested that UNOPS provide updated
accounts for all UNOPS-managed global projects. OHCHR stated they expect to receive the
final certified accounts from UNOPS by 31 March 2005 as specified in the MOU. OHCHR
agreed to inform UNOPS on the future use of any remaining balances from global projects,
as soon as they have been established. UNOPS replied that they would always respond to any
requests by OHCHR to finalise and confirm the remaining fund balance of the global projects
previously managed by UNOPS. OIOS will record this recommendation as implemented
when it receives from OHCHR a copy of the final certified accounts by 31 March 2005 and
information on the use of remaining balances for global projects.
(3) Performance indicators
15. OHCHR and UNOPS had not established formal performance indicators to monitor
agreed outputs or review arrangements as planned in the Mouse. Annex 1 of the MOU
identified a matrix or distribution of responsibilities of the various functions for OHCHR and
UNOPS. While OIOS believes this matrix is useful, it is not a substitute for performance
indicators.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
16. An OIOS review performed in 2001 recommended that UNOPS establish metrics in
order to measure performance. During the current audit, UNOPS, when asked for support of
more responsiveness in hiring and putting staff on the ground provided anecdotal information
about its quickness in hiring staff, but nothing to substantiate this. OIOS is not questioning
whether UNOPS did and does place staff within a minimal time period, but believes that more
"formal" documentation (even a spreadsheet with timelines) would be beneficial. OIOS
reiterates its recommendation made in an earlier audit report that performance indicators be
established.
17. The scope of the audit did not include site visits to field offices managed by UNOPS
under this MOU. Consequently, OIOS did not assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the
operations and services provided in the field. However, the MOU calls for an annual joint
review of the efficacy and efficiency of the arrangement entered into by OHCHR and
UNOPS. OIOS was told that a joint evaluation exercise was to be undertaken, but had to be
postponed due to unforeseen circumstances. It is envisioned that this exercise will still take
place. An assessment, using objective criteria, e.g. performance indicators, would help both
OHCHR and UNOPS to identify areas for improvement as well as areas in which UNOPS
performed well. OIOS recommends that this joint evaluation exercise, which is a requirement
of the MOU, be taken as soon as practicable.
Recommendation:
The Administrative Section, OHCHR should agree with UNOPS on
performance indicators for the services to be provided by UNOPS and
ensure that they are regularly monitored to measure UNOPS'
performance against agreed outputs and arrangements under the MOU
(Rec. 02).
The Administrative Section, OHCHR should arrange for the required
joint evaluation with UNOPS as soon as practicable (Rec.03).
18. OHCHR accepted both recommendations and stated that they would agree with
UNOPS on the indicators to be used to determine performance. In addition, OHCHR also
plans to hold a joint review with UNOPS during 2005. UNOPS agreed to join OHCHR in
establishing performance indicators to monitor agreed outputs or review arrangements as
planned in the MOUs. UNOPS confirmed that a joint evaluation was being prepared with a
target date of May 2005. OIOS will record Recommendations 02 and 03 as implemented
when it receives from OHCHR a list of performance indicators and confirmation of the joint
evaluation review that has taken place.
(4) Support costs
19. According to the MOU, OHCHR shall pay UNOPS support costs at a rate of 8 per
cent of project expenditures implemented by UNOPS. The MOU and the supporting materials
are silent on how the rate of 8 per cent was arrived at. Since OHCHR has not done a cost
analysis to determine the appropriateness of the current rate that UNOPS charges, OHCHR
needs to review the UNOPS rate along with the rate that UNOG plans to charge for their own
services.
Recommendation:
The Administrative Section, OHCHR should review the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
appropriateness of the UNOPS programme support costs rate of 8 per
cent (Rec. 04).
20. OHCHR agreed to request UNOPS to indicate what is covered by the 8 per cent
management fee. OHCHR stated that the overall issue would be dealt within a broader forum
involving UNOG and UNHQ in the context of trust fund reform. UNOPS welcomes the
principle of periodic reviews. OIOS will record Recommendation 04 as implemented when it
receives from OHCHR a copy of the results of the review of the rate of programme support
cost charged by UNOPS.
B. Financial Accounting Arrangements
(1) Funding mechanism
21. In terms of funding mechanisms, UNOPS management raised the issue of whether
UNOPS could revert to its earlier practice whereby it received funds directly from donors.
UNOPS used to receive contributions directly from donors for UNOPS-administered projects,
bypassing the UNHQ/UNOG treasury offices and accounting records. Following the
instruction of the UN Controller in a memorandum dated July 1998 and an OIOS audit
recommendation, donations have been places in UN trust funds specified for human rights
activities.
22. UNOPS reasoned that if funds went directly to UNOPS, the funding process might be
expedited. When a funding delay occurs, it can affect the project implementation. However,
there have been various reasons for delays in funding. A previous OIOS audit of UNOG-
administered trust fund contributions determined that one reason was UNOG's delay in
crediting funds to the appropriate account. During the current audit, UNOG informed OIOS
that contributions are recorded, in most cases, on the same day that the implementing office,
i.e. OHCHR, confirms how the contributions are to be credited. UNOG concluded that no
time lag exists relating to the funding problems of UNOPS. Another reason for the funding
delay was the failure of UNOPS to provide timely financial reports to OHCHR, which in turn
delayed transmittal of certified financial information to UNOG for recording purposes.
Consequently, UNOG may stop the release of funds until proper financial information is
received.
(2) Borrowing of funds
23. OHCHR told OIOS that it tries to retain a reasonable carry-over of funds from the
preceding year as a cushion. According to OHCHR, the Controller and UNOG has agreed to
the use of operating reserves in case of shortfalls. OIOS discussed this with the UN
Controller on 10 November 2004, who stated that this endorsement would only have been
done on an exceptional basis. Furthermore, UNOG claims that they agreed to use operating
reserves on an exceptional basis in the case for the extension of contracts for 25 international
staff working for the OHCHR Colombia Office from the period of 1 July to 31 December
2004.
24. During the audit, UNOG stated that a transfer of cash is normal between projects when
there are small unspent balances that could be offset over further remittances. UNOG continues
to affirm that cash balances cannot be transferred from one project to another and that UNOPS
should only incur expenditures based on the authorized allocations issued for the project.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
25. UNOPS told OIOS that it will "borrow" against the global projects where necessary to
implement services in the field. Since UNOPS does not consider what it is doing as
borrowing, but actually as cash management, there are no accounting entries tracking this.
UNOPS views OHCHR money as fungible and regards funds for the field and the global
projects as the same. UNOPS stressed that it would not borrow from other clients to subsidize
OHCHR projects. UNOPS believes that borrowing against a reserve should be acceptable as
long as the reserve is adequate and donor pledges have already been made. OIOS agrees with
UNOG that if financial commitments are maintained within the authorized allocation, there
should be no need to use balances from other projects.
(3) Blocking of funds for salaries
26. There has been some confusion and some disagreement, whether funds required to
cover salaries and other staff costs may or must be obligated at the beginning of the project or
otherwise set aside. According to OHCHR (memorandum from the Chief, Administrative
Section, OHCHR, dated 23 November 2004), UNOPS had the "practice of blocking funds for
the entire duration of an ALD [Activities of Limited Duration] contract leaving very limited
funds for activities in the 1st and 2nd quarters". This would mean, for example, if a project had
a total budget for salaries of $120,000, the full amount would be blocked immediately, even
though salaries are paid on a monthly basis and actual cash would not be required until later
in the year. Given that about 80 percent of UNOPS expenditure is salary-related, a practice of
blocking the full amount of staff cost could indeed disrupt smooth implementation of the
projects. UNOG held the view that UN Financial Rules do not require obligating salaries.
27. Since UNOPS Activities of Limited Duration (ALD), in accordance with Staff Rule
309.4, do not foresee the payment of termination indemnity, the main contingent liability that
could arise, if an appointment had to be terminated because of a funding shortfall, would be
30 days salary in lieu of notice. In the view of OIOS, if no other provision has been made,
this liability could be covered from the operating reserve.
28. At the tripartite meeting, the issue of blocking funds was discussed. It was decided
that this practice would be reviewed further by the interested parties in order to resolve the
problem. Subsequently, the Regional Director, UNOPS wrote that "in accordance with the
UN practice...the official financial report issued by UNOPS Finance does not show
obligations [for] (payroll) costs for international staff recruited under the 100, 200 and 300
series of the UN staff rules. ...the official financial reports show the most up-dated
information from the official UNOPS ledger including, normally, the last payroll payments of
the month preceding the date of issue of the report." OIOS reiterates that the three parties
involved need to agree on how contingent liabilities resulting from early termination of ALD
contracts would be covered.
Recommendations:
The Administrative Section, OHCHR should ensure that UNOPS uses
funds in accordance with the authorized allocation and should seek written
clarification from the Financial Resources Management Service, UNOG,
under which circumstances cash balances can be temporarily transferred
from one project to another (Rec. 05).
The Administrative Section, OHCHR should seek confirmation from the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
Financial Resources Management Service, UNOG that contingent
liabilities in case of early termination of ALD contracts of UNOPS staff
members working on OHCHR projects will be covered by the operating
reserve or should authorize UNOPS to set aside projects funds accordingly
(Rec. 06).
29. OHCHR agreed to seek written confirmation from UNOG on the circumstances
leading to cash balances being temporarily transferred from one project to another. OIOS
will record Recommendation 05 as implemented when it receives from OHCHR a copy of
this written clarification. OHCHR accepted that most OHCHR international staff in the field
would no longer be on UNOPS/ALD contracts. For those who remain on ALD contracts,
OHCHR, UNOPS and UNOG will agree on how to cover any possible contingent liabilities in
the event of early termination. OIOS will record Recommendation 06 as implemented upon
receipt from OHCHR of a copy of a document showing how any contingent liabilities arising
from early termination of ALD contracts could be covered.
(4) Financial statements
30. The MOU, requires four specific categories of financial reports which UNOPS shall
submit to OHCHR: (1) project specific monthly financial reports reflecting expenditures by
budget line by the 10th of the succeeding month; (2) project specific interim yearly financial
reports by budget line by the succeeding January; (3) final official yearly financial report
reflecting expenditures by budget line by the succeeding April and (4) six-month financial
statements on the status of the total funds received from OHCHR, expenditures and unspent
balance.
(a) Problems in receiving timely financial information
31. OHCHR is to certify the six-monthly statements and submit them to UNOG, but there
have been problems concerning this action. For example, UNOG did not receive the 30 June
2004 certified statements until early November 2004. Further, in July 2001, the Controller
instructed UNOG to withhold remittances to UNOPS. OHCHR informed OIOS that it had
problems receiving financial statements on time or getting sufficiently detailed financial
statements, such as monthly disbursements reports or else received reports that were
inconsistent from one period to the next. OIOS was told part of the problem was UNOPS'
conversion to a new financial reporting system in January 2004. OHCHR said that lack of
consistent, reliable financial information affects their planning and forecasting. OHCHR also
is deeply concerned that it is being held accountable for UNOPS' reporting failures.
32. In discussions with UNOG, OIOS learned that the UNOPS, New York Office had
submitted the six-monthly statements for the period ended 30 June 2004 to OHCHR by at least
30 July 2004. According to OHCHR, there was misunderstanding, as they did not submit
statements to UNOG due to confusion over the required format.
33. During the tripartite meeting, UNOG stated that it would be satisfied if OHCHR
submitted the six-month and year-end statements in a timely, as required by the MOU.
OHCHR requested UNOPS to provide consistent financial information that would allow it to
assess its financial position. UNOPS has agreed to provide, besides the four financial reports
stipulated in the MOU between OHCHR and UNOPS, monthly financial reports reflecting
information from UNOPS' official ledger. Although all parties at the tripartite meeting had
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
agreed to resolve the issue on the timeliness and adequacy of financial reporting, UNOG in
their comments on the draft Audit Report, stated that the delay of submission of financial
reports still persists. UNOPS stated that they were committed to provide timely financial
reports and that they had taken appropriate measures to improve their reporting ability.
OHCHR requested UNOPS to resume regular reporting as of March 2005. OHCHR should
follow up with UNOPS to ensure timely issuance of financial reports and should certify and
submit them to UNOG without delay dispatch. OIOS will follow up on this issue in the
planned audit of OHCHR financial administration in 2005.
(b) Discrepancies in financial reports
34. In an earlier audit, OIOS noted that financial information from UNOPS was lacking for
almost two years. For example, as of 30 November 1999, sixteen months after the 1998 MOU
took effect; UNOPS had not submitted any monthly statements of project expenditures to
OHCHR. Consequently, it was impossible tracing the funds provided to UNOPS for human
rights activities from initial receipt to final disbursement. While UNOPS had improved by
virtue of the fact that reports were made, detailed information was not always available or was
not always precise. From the reports OIOS had seen, some numbers related to the global
projects were estimated. Further, OIOS received two versions of the final 2003 report; one
from UNOPS New York and the other from the Annual Report and the numbers did not match.
However, OHCHR said that the final statements produced by UNOPS New York may be
revised by OHCHR and which may explain the discrepancies. These statements are the ones
certified by OHCHR and submitted to UNOG. OIOS had been concerned that UNOG, which
is copied on the UNOPS-prepared statements by UNOPS, would enter data into IMIS that may
not actually be the final data. UNOG said that it only entered data that was certified by
OHCHR and wanted copies of statements directly from UNOPS, in order to know that the
statements were available.
35. The New York Office of UNOPS prepares the six-month and full-year financial
statements, which include the remittances and expenditure of the field and the global operating
projects. The scope of our audit did not allow a site visit to the field, therefore, OIOS cannot
conclude whether the expenditure is reported properly and made in accordance with
appropriate rules. It is OHCHR's responsibility to ensure that all expenditure is properly
documented and incurred in accordance with proper financial controls. The expenditure, upon
which the 8 per cent support cost to UNOPS is based, is incurred by UNOPS. Although AIEs
(authority to incur expenditure) are issued, the detailed supporting documentation is kept in the
field by UNOPS. Since there is no independent verification of this expenditure by OHCHR, it
should consider arranging for spot checks of the documents to verify the accuracy of UNOPS
financial information, such as inclusion of that function in OHCHR HQ field inspections. This
arrangement could be added to the MOU.
(5) Delegation of authority
36. Problems in financial management of UNOPS administered projects may affect
OHCHR's request for delegation of authority to manage its own trust funds. Currently, UNOG
has the ability to intervene if financial information is not forthcoming, which acts as a control.
However, the fact that the amount of the existing global projects transferred to UNOPS and its
use could not be readily ascertained, is cause for concern. OIOS appreciates that the status of
the global projects will be reviewed, as agreed by the parties at the tripartite meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
Recommendation:
The Administrative Section, OHCHR, should arrange for spot checks of
field expenditures of UNOPS administered projects in order to verify
their accuracy (Rec. 07).
37. OHCHR agreed with the recommendation to monitor expenditures of
UNOPS administered field offices and to undertake spot checks in the field. OIOS
will record this recommendation as implemented when it receives information on
how OHCHR will monitor expenditures in the field offices and the outcome of
spot checks carried out in the field.
C. Arrangement of Project Personnel
(a) Staffing
38. OIOS was told a primary reason an entity would use UNOPS is its flexibility in hiring
staff. UNOPS can provide ALD contracts, which do not require a break in service after eleven
months. A break in service can be disruptive to OHCHR's programmes. While OHCHR is
involved in the selection of candidates, the Letters of Appointment are issued by UNOPS,
who legally is the staff members' employer. UNOPS, OHCHR and UNOG have diverging
views on the status of such UNOPS staff, recruited for work in OHCHR operations. This
uncertainty about the staff members' status can affect staff morale as well as UNOPS' ability
to engage staff.
39. UNOPS maintains that such staff members are to be considered as internal candidates
for recruitment and promotion purposes for UN Secretariat posts. The Regional Director,
UNOPS said that the status of staff within the UN career pattern depends exclusively on the
nature of the process leading to their recruitment. He argued that the selection process is the
controlling factor in determining whether one is considered internal or external. Since
OHCHR proposes the candidate to UNOPS, with UNOPS handling the rest of the process,
UNOPS believes that such a candidate is internal, irrespective of which UN entity administers
their contracts.
40. OIOS discussed the issue of internal candidacy with the UNOG Director of
Administration, and the UNOG Acting Chief, Human Resources Management Service, who
stated that staff with UNOPS contracts are not considered internal candidates because they
have not gone through the UNOG recruitment and promotion processes. According to
OHCHR staff, they also do not consider UNOPS staff internal candidates for OHCHR posts.
A 2002 ruling by OLA/OHRM clarified that, "should the posts encumbered by staff working
in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights under UNOPS letters of
appointment be advertised in accordance with the provisions of ST/AI/2002/4 [which defines
the expression internal candidates], these staff members would be considered external
candidates, and would have to compete with internal candidates whose applications would be
transmitted earlier than those of external candidates".
41. OIOS shares the view that staff, who do not hold a UN Letter of Appointment, are not
internal candidates, when applying for UN posts, regardless of OHCHR's involvement in the
selection process. Otherwise, the requirements and procedures of the UN staff selection
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10
system could be circumvented. OIOS wishes to point out, however, that women staff
members serving with other entities of the UN common system, may under certain conditions
have the same eligibility to apply for positions as internal candidates (ST/AI/2002/4, Section
5.5 (b) (ii)).
Recommendation:
The Administrative Section, OHCHR, should request UNOPS to
inform current and newly recruited UNOPS staff members
working for OHCHR about their status as external candidates,
when applying for posts in the UN (Rec. 08).
42. OHCHR agreed with the recommendation and stated that in the future
UNOPS would only employ project personnel or staff for short-term missions, who would be
informed of their status as external candidates. OIOS will record this recommendation as
implemented when it receives from OHCHR a copy of information that UNOPS provides to
project personnel or staff for short-term missions on their status as external candidates when
applying for posts in the UN.
V. FURTHER ACTIONS REQUIRED ON RECOMMENDATIONS
43. OIOS monitors the implementation of its audit recommendations for reporting to the
Secretary-General and to the General Assembly. The responses received on the audit
recommendations contained in the draft report have been recorded in our recommendations
database. In order to record full implementation, the actions described in the following table
are required:
Rec. no. Action/document required to close the recommendation
1* Copy of the final certified accounts by 31 March 2005 and information on
the use of the remaining balances for global projects.
2* List of performance indicators to be used to determine performance.
3 OHCHR to confirm to OIOS when a joint review with UNOPS has taken
place in 2005.
4 Copy of the results of the review of the rate of programme support cost
charged by UNOPS.
5 UNOG written confirmation to OHCHR under which circumstances cash
balances can be temporarily transferred from one project to another.
6 Document indicating how possible contingent liabilities in the event of
early termination of ALD contracts will be covered.
7 Information on how OHCHR will monitor expenditures of UNOPS
administered field offices and document showing outcome of the spot
checks taken in the field.
8 Copy of UNOPS information provided to project personnel or staff for
short-term missions on their status as external candidates when applying
for posts in the UN.
* Critical recommendations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
44. I wish to express my appreciation for the assistance and cooperation extended to the
auditors by the staff of OHCHR.
Egbert C. Kaltenbach, Director
Internal Audit Division II
Office of Internal Oversight Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------